VPI 2nd Pivot for 3D

billstevenson

... may I suggest that we agree that there is no one, single, absolute "right" way to do anything in audio ...

Of course you may suggest that, and I’d agree. The problem is that there are some self-appointed "experts" here who insist that their version of "The Truth" and "The Facts" are so infallible as to render our preferences invalid. These are people who - notwithstanding their efforts to portray themselves as intellectuals and visionaries - are actually idiots. What’s sad is that they don’t realize just how foolish they look.

This thread’s topic is about how adding a second pivot to a VPI 3D arm produced great results for the OP. It’s interesting how this simple audiophile experience disturbs those whose version of the Truth just can’t even imagine anyone being happy with such an arm in the first place.

" My take is to forget our " preferences " or what we " like " and stay " centered " on what " should be " and start to build the " new " system from here "

Raul you don't get to come in here and dictate what other members should do and how they should think and ridicule their preferences everyone is entitled to a voice here and its about time you recognized that everyone here is free to disagree with you whenever they choose and that they should be able to do this without your insults and pompous pronouncements against them. There's a reason your post above was deleted and as I have said before I think you are posting from your mommy's basement you must live in a very small world to believe that your version of things is the ultimate reality and must be accepted by everyone.

Dear @cleeds : Good that agree with bill but in that regards are wrong because the Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing.

I'm not talking if you love unipivot kind of sound or if you do not, this is not the MAIN SUBJECT but its inherent unstability.

You said: """ that make them inherently flawed is just nonsense. """
but you did not say why is inherently flawed. Through my posts in this thread I explain those facts in a wide manner, read it again and please please come back here and tell us the why's of that " inherent flawed ".

 You followed:   """ There are reasons that unipivots endure in the marketplace... """

As several other audio " myths " is only because unknowledge level about. Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE that is where lives the MUSIC and audio hobby.

That " should be " is something that each one of us have to make and take a day by day learning path where in many audio/MUSIC subjects on that whole " should be " are almost unknow for many of us.
Not an easy process task that it's not only time consuming but dificult to understand and where we need to ask our selfs: what is happening down there, at each single step that any audio link makes its job.
In the case of the ridding cartridge job almost we have to analize as if we were the cartridge and have the vision of " our " job ridding those tortuos LP grooves and all what this means. We have to do first with out taking in count TT or tonearm but as a stand alone cartridge and from here analize what in the " hell " are the cartridge needs to fulfill its very hard task.

It's an overall process at each step, we have to go as deepest as we can with patience.
We have to analize at least from where comes the recorded information in the LPs. Well, that normally comes from what the recording microphones pick-up in NEAR FIELD not at 30m.-50m. from the music source as happens when we are seated in a music hall.

Those are incomplete examples to sooner or latter know how everything in audio SHOULD BE and improve our listening quality levels.
The rewards are fenomenal and we learn several things as if we discover a new audio world.

When we start to make the audio systems changes to achieve that " should be " we will know that in the past we were " wrong " and in this " new world " we really enjoy the MUSIC as never before.
I'm still in the quest to finish that " should be " and I can tell you that's worth to do it.

I'm not different of each one of you: I'm a MUSIC lover and I want to achieve the true best listening experiences through my home stereo audio system. Tha's all and as many other audio items unipivots can't help to approach that targets.

Anyway is up to each one of us.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Dear @cleeds : I'm still waiting for your answer/information about that my post was " inherently flawed ".

I ask you again bacause it's very easy to " say this or that " as you posted but any one of us have to have the gentless to say why some one is wrong or like in this case " flawed ".

Please share the information on why you are thinking that.

From my part I never post any kind of critic/information just as yours, always give a wide explanation why I think that. All the gentlemans that posted in any internet forum have the responsability to give complete information according to our experiences and knowledge level. Critics with out that " foundation " does not helps any one and all are in the forums looking for HELP.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

"Bill's facts/tests were not created to measures the stability in tonearms subject. So in this regards means nothing."

I was going to let this go, but you have restated it and it is becoming obvious that you are ignorant of the scientific method.  What I offered were several indirect proofs that unipivot arms perform well.  Indirect proofs are repeatable, independently verifiable, and are sound science.  That they mean nothing to you tells me that you are no scientist.  You claim to know what you are doing, but this belies that claim.  What "means nothing" by contrast are the You Tube clips you referenced which do not measure anything, do not provide a verifiable proof of anything and do not allow independent verification.  Your "proof" is not science.  It is worthless.

"Almost all audiophiles are focus on what we like and not in what SHOULD BE.... "

You have repeated this sentiment several times and it must be dealt with.  How do you propose to establish "what should be?"  And since we are talking about music, we are also talking about many intangibles such as for example acoustics.  Are you suggesting that it is possible to establish one set of parameters for "what should be" that would be universally correct for all tastes and all situations?  To illustrate: small group, acoustic performance, "should be" set in an entirely different venue than would be desirable for a full opera production.  So what do you mean by "what should be?"  Then too, are you advocating the elimination of free choice in our musical enjoyment?  If Adolf Hitler had his way, we'd all be Wagnerians. Can we all agree that the world is a better place without that sort of restriction (no offense to any Wagnerians intended)?

Finally, your response to my tongue-in-cheek reference to the Holy Grail is telling.  The obvious answer to your "why not?" is because such a thing does not exist.  It is becoming clear that you are on a one man quest for something that a) is not practical and cannot be obtained (and may I say parenthetically, Thank God!), and it would not be viable even if achievable because as audiophiles we are all a bunch of free spirits who happily want to go our own way, make our own choices, in short, follow our own muse.